The author also needs to work on his own rationality. The car example is just bad start to finish. You need a lot more information to even estimate net deaths from the car in question.
Which has nothing to do with the point being made.
somervta
Karma: 1,606
IIRC, we were doing it as an initial pass-through, but that plan might have changed.
Perhaps not, but there is good evidence for drugs+therapy doing better than either alone.
I’m trying to learn Linear Algebra and some automata/computability stuff for courses, and I have basic set theory and logic on the backburner.
An actual device?!?
Thanks! I didn’t fine it with my minute of googling, good to know it’s legit.
I don’t suppose you have a source for the quote? (at this point, my default is to disbelieve any attribution of a quote unknown to me to Einstein)
‘noble phantasm’ is probably a reference to Fate/Stay Night, wherein a noble phantasm is a weapon or object of unusual reknown which a certain class of beings have that grants them signature powers.
I would put such things in the bragging thread—why the separation?
I don’t think it’s a good idea to write things expressing opinions like this as if you’re presenting the majority view, even when you think it is. I for one completely disagree with the first paragraph, and would only like transparency wrt deletions if it was unobtrusive.
So, after reading the comments, I figure I should speak up because selection effects
I appreciated the deleting of the original post. I thought it was silly, and pointless and not what should be on LW. I didn’t realize it was being upvoted (or I would have downvoted it), and I still don’t know why it was.
I endorse the unintrusive (i.e, silent and unannounces) deleting of things like this (particularly given that the author was explicitly not taking the posting seriously—written while drunk, etc), and I suspect others do as well.
There’s a thing that happens wherein any disagreement with moderation ends up being much more noticable than agreement. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many who, like me, agreed with decisions like this and weren’t speaking up. If so, I urge you to briefly comment (even just “I agree/d with the decision to delete”).
This comments’ parenthetical was at least 10x more valuable to me as the OP
I was scrolling through, saw this comment and reread ialdabaoth’s comment and upvoted, which I wouldn’t have without yours. upvoted.
You mean on average? The studies I’m thinking of had small or no differences, but I’m pretty sure there are other results out there.
I don’t have the citation to hand, but IIRC there’s research suggesting higher variance among parents is the most significant effect.
You offering?
Ooops, I actually didn’t mean to post that! Usually when I’m making an obvious criticism, after I write it I go back and double-check that I haven’t missed or misinterpreted something, and I noticed that and meant to delete the unposted comment. I guess I must have hit enter at some point.
Because each additional dollar is less valuable, however, we would expect this transfer to make the group as a whole worse off.
grumble grumble only if the people the money went from were drawn from the same or similar distribution as the person it goes to.
The link to Non-Omniscience, Probabilistic Inference, and Metamathematics isn’t right. Also, ‘published earlier this year’ is now wrong, it should be ‘midway through last year’ :D